or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Rick Perry
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rick Perry - Page 3

post #81 of 178
If Warren is serious, he should write a check for $5 billion and send it here:

http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #82 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Buffett is a total douche. He makes huge profits off the inheritance tax (which is basically just a subsidy for insurance companies), and comes out with press conferences talking about how we really need to keep it without talking about his conflict of interest.

The inheritance tax triggers sudden forced sales of private businesses if the founders make a mistake and don't buy enough life insurance, and Buffet benefits there too - scoping up fire sale businesses on the cheap.

And then he sets up a foundation for each one of his heirs to run and get a salary from, while avoiding inheritance tax all together.

And his partner is worse - I hate both of them, and disregard everything that they have to say.

Fair enough, you know more about him than I do.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #83 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I'll look at the numbers but you originally left out three zero's and wrote millions not billions, that's what I was laughing at.

I'll get another link for my pretty picture.

Here it is. Scroll down to Figure 7 (3/5 down the page). How more unfair do you want to make things John G?- http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesam...er/wealth.html



It's hard weeping at this- The requested page does not exist. Please check your URL.

Try starting here. Then look for what you need. It is all there.

http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/index.html
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #84 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Fair enough, you know more about him than I do.

He never does anything that he won't make money from - every word out of his mount is "talking his book". If he wants higher taxes on Billionaires, he must have placed a bet where he makes a ton of money on the new tax.

Plus he is the biggest welfare queen of all time, a huge amount of the stimulus ended up in his pocket (or prevented him from taking losses).
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #85 of 178
Another reminder that the wealthiest 400 American's are worth more than 60% of Americans combined-

"In other words, he was saying the poorest 60 percent of U.S. households had $1.22 trillion in net worth, which is less than the $1.27 trillion in net worth for the Forbes 400 wealthiest Americans."

And the top 1% are worth more than 95% of Americans combined-

"the richest 1 percent have more financial wealth than the bottom 95 percent combined."
~ http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/...-more-wealth-/
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #86 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Another reminder that the wealthiest 400 American's are worth more than 60% of Americans combined

Why does that matter? We also collect more revenue/gdp than we did the 1960s, and the number of tax payers as a percentage of the population has gone down.

i.e. rich people are paying more tax than ever

Suppose I has 800 million - rich, but not enough to be famous. If you raised taxes on me I would just create a Swiss corporation and buy 700 million in shares, that money would be forever out of the reach of the US government since I would never issue dividends.

Or I could create a US business, and have it never have a profit because I spent all the money flying around in private jets, etc. The business would own my houses and stuff.

The US is collecting as much money as they will ever collect from rich people, trying to figure out how to collect more is a waste of time. The really high marginal rates in the 1960s just made rich people do weird stuff to avoid taxes, the trick to maximizing revenue is to make taxes low enough that it isn't worth doing the weird stuff.

And the trick to making taxes fair is to remove all complexity in the tax code.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #87 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Try starting here. Then look for what you need. It is all there.

http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/index.html


Thanks NoahJ.


It's not that I doubt John's figures. What I think is that the income tax and capital gains tax should be increased on the richest earners beyond what they were at before the Bush tax cuts were even introduced. They have had and continue to have rapidly growing wealth and taxing them at a higher rate will bring in trillions of dollars that not only could go into programs that help the needy and the average American, but also stimulate growth by getting that money back into the economy where it will actually produce jobs, not figures on a rich mans bank statement. In other words it's better for GDP.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #88 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Thanks NoahJ.


It's not that I doubt John's figures. What I think is that the income tax and capital gains tax should be increased on the richest earners beyond what they were at before the Bush tax cuts were even introduced. They have had and continue to have rapidly growing wealth and taxing them at a higher rate will bring in trillions of dollars that not only could go into programs that help the needy and the average American, but also stimulate growth by getting that money back into the economy where it will actually produce jobs, not figures on a rich mans bank statement. In other words it's better for GDP.

If you don't doubt his figures then how could it bring in Trillions? That amount of money is just not there to be had...
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #89 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Why does that matter? We also collect more revenue/gdp than we did the 1960s, and the number of tax payers as a percentage of the population has gone down.

i.e. rich people are paying more tax than ever

Suppose I has 800 million - rich, but not enough to be famous. If you raised taxes on me I would just create a Swiss corporation and buy 700 million in shares, that money would be forever out of the reach of the US government since I would never issue dividends.

Or I could create a US business, and have it never have a profit because I spent all the money flying around in private jets, etc. The business would own my houses and stuff.

The US is collecting as much money as they will ever collect from rich people, trying to figure out how to collect more is a waste of time. The really high marginal rates in the 1960s just made rich people do weird stuff to avoid taxes, the trick to maximizing revenue is to make taxes low enough that it isn't worth doing the weird stuff.

And the trick to making taxes fair is to remove all complexity in the tax code.


But only to a certain extent is what you're saying true. I don't know too much about this $700 million in a Swiss corporation, as I'm sure you can understand, but the notion that that's that and you wouldn't have to worry about taxes is definitely wrong.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #90 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

If you don't doubt his figures then how could it bring in Trillions? That amount of money is just not there to be had...

It definitely is.

Just the revenues lost from Bush's tax cuts over the next decade on the top two percent is nearly $700 billion. I'm suggesting going further and upping taxes on that group to levels higher than they were before they took effect. Pretty much go in the opposite direction to Bush. Instead of decreasing the revenue by $700 billion, increase it by about $700 billion. That takes you to $1.4 trillion over the next decade not even including interest payments saved which would be several more hundreds of billions on top of that.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #91 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

But only to a certain extent is what you're saying true. I don't know too much about this $700 million in a Swiss corporation, as I'm sure you can understand, but the notion that that's that and you wouldn't have to worry about taxes is definitely wrong.

Why? Your corporation would pay Swiss corporate taxes, that is it. Maybe you would have to pay capital gains taxes in the countries your corporation invested in, but the US would only be able to get involved to the extent that you bought US securities in the corp.

The Cargil family has one of these swiss corporations owned by a US trust (called Tradex), no US taxes at all unless they issue dividends.

Plus - once you trigger families to create these types of corporations, they don't bother to un-do them for generations, no matter what changes to tax law are made. That is permanent lost revenue.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #92 of 178
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

It's hard weeping at this- The requested page does not exist. Please check your URL.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/histab3.xls
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #93 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

It definitely is.

Just the revenue gap from Bush's tax cuts over the next decade on the top two percent is nearly $700 billion in lost revenue. I'm suggesting going further and upping taxes on that group to levels higher than they were before they took effect. Pretty much go in the opposite direction to Bush. Instead of decreasing the revenue by $700 billion, increase it by about $700 billion. That takes you to $1.4 trillion over the next decade not even including interest payments saved which would be several more hundreds of billions on top of that.

That assumes that nothing changes. You cannot simply make that assumption.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #94 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Why? Your corporation would pay Swiss corporate taxes, that is it. Maybe you would have to pay capital gains taxes in the countries your corporation invested in, but the US would only be able to get involved to the extent that you bought US securities in the corp.

The Cargil family has one of these swiss corporations owned by a US trust (called Tradex), no US taxes at all unless they issue dividends.

Plus - once you trigger families to create these types of corporations, they don't bother to un-do them for generations, no matter what changes to tax law are made. That is permanent lost revenue.

OK, I see roughly where you're coming from, and yes you're right this happens and it's again been facilitated mostly by Republicans changing the laws. Change the laws and stop them, especially regarding Trusts, that are now widely used to bypass paying taxes by the rich.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #95 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

That assumes that nothing changes. You cannot simply make that assumption.

You'll have to elaborate on that one.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #96 of 178
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

And the trick to making taxes fair is to remove all complexity in the tax code.

Correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

If you don't doubt his figures then how could it bring in Trillions? That amount of money is just not there to be had...

That's my point. Someone with a public school education and fifteen minutes with a calculator can see it. Why the demagogy? Why promote class envy? Why demonize wealth when it's clear that what's needed is more of it.

Whatever the reason, these silly arguments have nothing to do with raising revenue or reducing the public debt.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #97 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

OK, I see roughly where you're coming from, and yes you're right this happens and it's again been facilitated mostly by Republicans changing the laws. Change the laws and stop them, especially regarding Trusts, that are now widely used to bypass paying taxes by the rich.

What law could you pass to stop me from creating a corporation or a trust in another country? Some countries have capital controls that prevent you from sending money out of the country, but it would be a mistake to implement one here because there would be a mass exodus of money.

Trusts help you avoid inheritance tax, not income tax. You can avoid income tax and there is nothing that the government could do about it except:

1) Capital controls
2) Net-worth (intangibles) taxes

Both of which would not be easy laws to pass.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #98 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/histab3.xls

Thanks, but I'm on a Mac and that file didn't work. Maybe you are on Windows or have a program I don't.

But like I said earlier I don't doubt the figures.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #99 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Thanks, but I'm on a Mac and that file didn't work. Maybe you are on Windows or have a program I don't.

But like I said earlier I don't doubt the figures.

That is a Microsoft excel file. Any program capable of reading excel should be able to open it. Mac or PC makes no difference.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #100 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

Correct.



That's my point. Someone with a public school education and fifteen minutes with a calculator can see it. Why the demagogy? Why promote class envy? Why demonize wealth when it's clear that what's needed is more of it.

Whatever the reason, these silly arguments have nothing to do with raising revenue or reducing the public debt.

His assumption here appears to be that all we need to do is raise taxes on the rich until they are paying the figures that he wants to see. I suppose that it could be tried, but I do not believe that the rich would sit around for 10 years and wait for the money to be taken from them. After the new laws went into effect, there would be massive changes in how the money of the wealthy was structured. Within a couple of years the income would likely dry up significantly.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #101 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

What law could you pass to stop me from creating a corporation or a trust in another country? Some countries have capital controls that prevent you from sending money out of the country, but it would be a mistake to implement one here because there would be a mass exodus of money.

Trusts help you avoid inheritance tax, not income tax. You can avoid income tax and there is nothing that the government could do about it except:

1) Capital controls
2) Net-worth (intangibles) taxes

Both of which would not be easy laws to pass.

Trusts do that and there also being used to avoid income tax. I don't have the links I've read on the subject but basically income is paid into a Trust to avoid the income being taxed through income tax. There are increasing numbers of people doing it. The old notion of Trusts has changed.

I really can't comment on your $700 million new corporation. People do all sorts of things with their wealth and that may be one of them used to avoid taxes. One thing I suspect though is that that can only go so far.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #102 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

That is a Microsoft excel file. Any program capable of reading excel should be able to open it. Mac or PC makes no difference.


I don't have a program that reads excel, I'm an artist.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #103 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

His assumption here appears to be that all we need to do is raise taxes on the rich until they are paying the figures that he wants to see. I suppose that it could be tried, but I do not believe that the rich would sit around for 10 years and wait for the money to be taken from them. After the new laws went into effect, there would be massive changes in how the money of the wealthy was structured. Within a couple of years the income would likely dry up significantly.


I'm not saying all we need to do is raise taxes on the wealthiest, I'm saying that's an important part of what we need to do.

That income won't dry up because that group will be getting richer, therefore the taxes gained from that group will get larger.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #104 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I'm not saying all we need to do is raise taxes on the wealthiest, I'm saying that's an important part of what we need to do.

That income won't dry up because that group will be getting richer, therefore the taxes gained from that group will get larger.

For the specific part we are discussing you are looking to get Trillions in Revenues from the wealthy. I am not talking about the overall plan, just this part. I realize that there are other things you want to happen as well.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #105 of 178
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

... Maybe you are on Windows

Not unless absolutely necessary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

But like I said earlier I don't doubt the figures.

You don't doubt the figures Hands yet you insist someone... somewhere... has simply amassed too much money and the government ought to confiscate it to make all our problems go away, right? I've demonstrated there isn't enough, unless you attack a much broader income bracket - one that goes deep, deep into the sub- $40,000 range of annual income.

I love artists Hands, but the world also needs people who have the ability to manipulate cold hard mathematical information. If you're more comfortable in your world of feelings and impressions, that's fine, but don't pretend those attributes will enable you to come anywhere close to understanding the financial mess our government has created by reading what a jackass like Michael Moore has to write:

Quote:
Just 400 Americans -- 400 -- have more wealth than half of all Americans combined

Fine, so go take it. "Spread it around" as if wealth is some naturally occurring substance rather than the rightfully earned product of a human mind and human hands. Throw those self-serving wealthy in the gulag. It works every time, right?
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #106 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I'm not saying all we need to do is raise taxes on the wealthiest, I'm saying that's an important part of what we need to do.

That income won't dry up because that group will be getting richer, therefore the taxes gained from that group will get larger.

It's been proven. Increasing taxes on the rich doesn't increase revenue. Nor does it make life "fair" for everyone else. So just quit already.
post #107 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

OK, I see roughly where you're coming from, and yes you're right this happens and it's again been facilitated mostly by Republicans changing the laws. Change the laws and stop them, especially regarding Trusts, that are now widely used to bypass paying taxes by the rich.

Can you please tell us which laws Republicans have changed?

Here's what really happens when the left decide to "raise taxes on the rich": we all suffer because they can't count.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #108 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

Not unless absolutely necessary.



You don't doubt the figures Hands yet you insist someone... somewhere... has simply amassed too much money and the government ought to confiscate it to make all our problems go away, right? I've demonstrated there isn't enough, unless you attack a much broader income bracket - one that goes deep, deep into the sub- $40,000 range of annual income.

I love artists Hands, but the world also needs people who have the ability to manipulate cold hard mathematical information. If you're more comfortable in your world of feelings and impressions, that's fine, but don't pretend those attributes will enable you to come anywhere close to understanding the financial mess our government has created by reading what a jackass like Michael Moore has to write:



Fine, so go take it. "Spread it around" as if wealth is some naturally occurring substance rather than the rightfully earned product of a human mind and human hands. Throw those self-serving wealthy in the gulag. It works every time, right?

I'm not sure how you get into the sub $40,000 range.

The $1.4 trillion figure I mentioned earlier is a lot. Combine that with cuts to defense spending, which by the way has increased by 80% since 2000, not including the spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Trim it back instead of say the full 80%, just half it, to 50% of what it is now. That's another $350 billion a year and again with interest payments on the debt saved, considerably more over ten years. Just those two things alone add up to $5 trillion over ten years.

Then there's healthcare. Bring costs down like other countries have done, what's happening in the US is not just pushing the government a lot further into debt, it's immoral. The US spends more than $8,000 (that's about 16% of GDP and in another 5 years it's expected to rise to about 20%) at the moment per citizen a year and the government covers in total around 50% of the costs, not including the tax breaks. Canada spends about $3,500 per person. Free up American healthcare and the government will raise revenues because people and businesses will have more money to spend and invest, because it wasn't spent on healthcare. GM spent more on healthcare costs than it did on steel per vehicle. The government could, but sadly it's not about to happen, end up with extra revenues in the $100's of billions given we're talking about $2.5 trillion spent each year on healthcare at the moment.

And of course there are other areas where the US could spend less, without taking away vital necessities for the least well off. Come on, America is the wealthiest country in the world all told.


When you add up the new revenues and spending cuts, America could not just be not wasting money on it's debt interest payments, it could completely pay off it's debts and have a surplus and in a very short period of time too. That's not an artists view, it's the facts.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #109 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

If Warren is serious, he should write a check for $5 billion and send it here:

http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html

If that could convince the government to resume adequate taxation of the other ultra-rich, then he should. If it would have no effect other than $5bn more to the government, then he shouldn't.
post #110 of 178
Donald Trump-

NEW YORK CNN Billionaire businessman Donald Trump has a plan to pay off the national debt, grant a middle class a tax cut, and keep Social Security afloat, tax rich people like himself.

Trump, a prospective candidate for the Reform Party presidential nomination, is proposing a onetime net worth tax on individuals and trusts worth 10 million or more.

By Trumps calculations, his proposed 14.25 percent levy on such net worth would raise 5.7 trillion and wipe out the debt in one full swoop.


The U.S. national debt decreased by 9.7 billion in September but remains at 5.66 trillion, according to the latest U.S. Treasury figures.

The net worth tax is the cornerstone of Trumps economic plan released Tuesday morning.

No one has put forward a plan to make this country entirely debt free as we enter the next millenium, Trump said in a written statement.

The plan I am proposing today does not involve smoke and mirrors, phony numbers, financial gimmicks, or the usual economic chicanery you usually find in DisneylandonthePotomac, Trump said.

Trump would exempt the value of an individuals principal home from the net worth total.

By my calculations, 1 percent of Americans, who control 90 percent of the wealth in this country, would be affected by my plan, Trump said.

The other 99 percent of the people would get deep reductions in their federal income taxes, he said.

Eliminating the national debt would save the federal government 200 billion a year in interest payments, Trump said. He proposes to earmark half the savings for middle class tax cuts, and the other half for Social Security.
~ http://articles.cnn.com/1999-11-09/p...PM:ALLPOLITICS
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #111 of 178
I'm slightly amused with a bunch of people who've already got theirs now recommending the government take more from others.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #112 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Donald Trump-

NEW YORK CNN Billionaire businessman Donald Trump has a plan to pay off the national debt, grant a middle class a tax cut, and keep Social Security afloat, tax rich people like himself.

Trump, a prospective candidate for the Reform Party presidential nomination, is proposing a onetime net worth tax on individuals and trusts worth 10 million or more.

By Trumps calculations, his proposed 14.25 percent levy on such net worth would raise 5.7 trillion and wipe out the debt in one full swoop.


The U.S. national debt decreased by 9.7 billion in September but remains at 5.66 trillion, according to the latest U.S. Treasury figures.

The net worth tax is the cornerstone of Trumps economic plan released Tuesday morning.

No one has put forward a plan to make this country entirely debt free as we enter the next millenium, Trump said in a written statement.

The plan I am proposing today does not involve smoke and mirrors, phony numbers, financial gimmicks, or the usual economic chicanery you usually find in DisneylandonthePotomac, Trump said.

Trump would exempt the value of an individuals principal home from the net worth total.

By my calculations, 1 percent of Americans, who control 90 percent of the wealth in this country, would be affected by my plan, Trump said.

The other 99 percent of the people would get deep reductions in their federal income taxes, he said.

Eliminating the national debt would save the federal government 200 billion a year in interest payments, Trump said. He proposes to earmark half the savings for middle class tax cuts, and the other half for Social Security.
~ http://articles.cnn.com/1999-11-09/p...PM:ALLPOLITICS

That's a great example of why government ought not confiscate wealth. How bad would Donald feel now that there would still be $13 trillion more new debt on top of that "paid off" debt and $60 plus trillion in liabilitites still out there. (That's just Medicare and S.S. and not addressing state and municiple bonds and pensions.)

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #113 of 178
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I'm not sure how you get into the sub $40,000 range.

I wouldn't expect you to Hands. You'd rather read an inane screed from Michael Moore than the factual information I posted:

Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

Want more to think about, assuming you're capable? The aggregate income of all taxpayers who earned more than $2M in 2009 was approximately equal to the aggregate income of all taxpayers who earned less than $40,000.

I had assumed you were capable; I won't make that mistake again.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #114 of 178
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

That's a great example of why government ought not confiscate wealth.

As if the USSR, Cuba, the GDR, North Korea... weren't bad enough examples already
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #115 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

I wouldn't expect you to Hands. You'd rather read an inane screed from Michael Moore than the factual information I posted:



I had assumed you were capable; I won't make that mistake again.

ER, ok. What it is that I'm not supposed to be capable of here? Please explain because otherwise it just appears as yet another slur to meat out your lackluster and intentionally deceptive posts. Posts that talk about how half of Americans don't pay income tax. The truth is though that as a share of the total tax burden they pay nearly as much as everyone else.

You're arguing that unless we raise taxes on those down to $40,000 it won't be a substantial sum of money. This is daft as I've already illustrated, the money from the top 2% in just moderate tax increases massively expands the governments revenue. And of course you'd be promoting that the share of taxes that the poorer members of society pay be higher than the wealthy. This is typical right wing thinking that seeks to perversely damn those with the least income whilst defending those with the most.

Micheal Moore is pointing out something which would be troubling to anyone who really cared about the average person. Indeed the Royals back in the day would no doubt be envious of the way things are today. 400 people having more wealth than 60% of Americans. You'd like no doubt for the rich to pay less of a share of the taxes and the poor and middle to pay a larger share.

Millions of people declare less than $40,000 in income (the median declared income in the US is $50,000 in 2008) add up to the same amount as a few who earn over $2 million. Is this new information, or information that anyone would be surprised by?
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #116 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Your figures are badly wrong.

lol you edited your post from "millions" to the "correct" billions.

OMG! A mistake!

Quote:

The average declared income of each of the wealthiest 400 Americans is close to $350 million and they pay about 16.5% income tax. Do the maths!

Here's a nice chart showing just how fair the tax system is (Fig 7 about 3/5 down the page)- http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesam...er/wealth.html

You're missing the point, which is not the percentage of income these "millionaires and billionaires" pay, but the total dollar amount that they can possibly contribute to the government (read: have stolen from them).



Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

A few points about the Bush tax cuts-

"Approximately 20 percent of total benefits went to 0.3 percent of households earning $1 million or more per year.

"Total benefits?" It's their money, not the government's. How can keeping more of your own money be a "benefit?"

Quote:


IF THE BUSH TAX CUTS WERE MADE PERMANENT:

•\tMaking the cuts permanent would cost the federal government an additional $3.4 Trillion over the next decade, if they were funded by borrowing.

•\tPermanent tax cuts would create revenue losses over three times larger than the long-term Social Security funding gap. The windfall received by the top one percent of taxpayers alone would be sufficient to close the Social Security funding gap through 2075.

•\tUsing optimistic assumptions, the Administration’s estimates of the possible long-term economic benefits of the tax cuts find that they would boost economic growth by a negligible four one- hundredths of one percent per year. These long-term growth benefits would only occur if tax cuts are funded through reductions in Federal spending.

And finally, but not least, given the Repubs desire for slashing spending-


•\tIf tax cuts were funded by spending cuts, they would actually reduce net after-tax income for almost 75 percent of American households, while income among households earning $1 million per year or more would increase by almost 8 percent."
~ http://jec.senate.gov/public/?a=File...2-95f983f1e89e

All of the above points are complete nonsense. The Bush Tax cuts can't be "funded" because they are not "spending." Secondly, you are assuming that taxation is a zero-sum equation, which it is not. That means you don't get X revenue from Y rate, nor increase in revenue A from tax increase B, etc. Taxation affects behavior, which affects economic growth. Economic growth affects revenue. This means that we'll never really calculate the "cost" of either cutting or raising taxes. This is why analysis of what the Bush Tax Cuts "cost" is flawed right from the beginning. It assumes that revenue growth would have continued upward w/o the stimulative effect of the cuts themselves.

What we do know is that lower taxes tend to result in better growth, which results in more revenue. Conversely, raising taxes or keeping them high in times of economic recession has a depressive effect. Proof for this is found in the aftermath of both the Reagan and Bush tax cuts. Despite relatively large rate decreases and other taxpayer-friendly changes, revenue went up significantly. In the 1980s, revenue doubled from about $450 billion to about $900 billion. In 2007, we had record revenue despite having cuts taxes in 2001 and 2003.

Taken with john galt's data, the above demonstrates why raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires will simply not be effective in dealing with our deficit problem. It's not even an opinion...it's arithmetic.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #117 of 178
"Three new national polls released on Wednesday show Texas Gov. Rick Perry rocketing ahead of Mitt Romney and the rest of the announced candidates as the first choice of Republicans to be their 2012 presidential nominee.

A new survey conducted late last week by Gallup finds Perry to be the choice of 29 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents nationwide, followed by Mitt Romney with 17 percent, Ron Paul at 13 percent and Michelle Bachman scoring 10 percent. All other announced candidates received 4 percent or less, and 17 percent of Republicans nationwide expressed no preference."
~ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_935624.html
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #118 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

"Three new national polls released on Wednesday show Texas Gov. Rick Perry rocketing ahead of Mitt Romney and the rest of the announced candidates as the first choice of Republicans to be their 2012 presidential nominee.

A new survey conducted late last week by Gallup finds Perry to be the choice of 29 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents nationwide, followed by Mitt Romney with 17 percent, Ron Paul at 13 percent and Michelle Bachman scoring 10 percent. All other announced candidates received 4 percent or less, and 17 percent of Republicans nationwide expressed no preference."
~ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_935624.html

This obviously hasn't been run through the mainstream media filter. Let me fix that:

Quote:
A new survey conducted late last week by Gallup finds Perry to be the choice of 29 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents nationwide, followed by Mitt Romney with 17 percent and Michelle Bachman scoring 10 percent. All other announced candidates received 4 percent or less, and 17 percent of Republicans nationwide expressed no preference.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #119 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

This obviously hasn't been run through the mainstream media filter. Let me fix that:

He's the Dennis Kucinich of the Republican party.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #120 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

If Warren is serious, he should write a check for $5 billion and send it here:

http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html

Never will this happen
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Rick Perry